31/12 Standing Up to the NeoCon War Crowd – Nuremberg Style

Should We Have Nuremberg Trials for American NeoCons Now and Save Millions of Lives – or Do It the Hard Way?
… by Jim W. Dean, VT Editor … featuring Stephen M. Walt

Better to Have the Trials – Instead of a War – It Has a Smaller Body Count and It’s Cheaper
The close of WWII found the victorious Allies staging the Nuremberg trials and convicting the Nazi leadership of ‘waging an aggressive war’. Those who went to the gallows were a symbolic sacrifice, as millions of innocent victims were slaughtered after WWII, under Allied control.

German POWs found themselves a convenient substitute for original plan for the mass murder of twenty million German civilians to ensure peaceful co-existence with the future German nation.

Morganthau’s Treasury Department, heavily penetrated by Soviet Espionage via the likes of Harry Dexter White had proposed reducing Germany’s population by one third to a level that would not require food imports. Morganthau’s son later stated, protectively perhaps, that the plan had really been White’s.

This would eliminate Germany’s need to be an aggressive exporter to earn the needed foreign exchange.

To Morganthau and his fellow enlightened cohorts, killing off 20 million post war Germans through starvation would be a step forward toward world peace. I suspect our Founding Fathers would disagree.

Fast forward to 2011. Morganthaus still walk among us, re-encarnated in the form of the American NeoCons and their band of merry conspirators.

‘Waging an aggressive war’ seems to be an ‘in thing’ now with these folks and I do not perceive their having any fear of prosecution under the Nuremberg precedents.

The case in point is Iran, obviously considered a lynch pin target for continued post Cold War aggression by the United States shadow government.

Here Iran sits in an area surrounded with U.S. military power and bases, with our Zionist ally brimming with WDM for which it snuffs it’s nose to the international community (and the Nuremberg precedents), protected by a UN American veto.

Iran ‘Threat’ has been Hyped by ‘Controlled Media’ for Years Now – Whose Game Are They Playing Along With?

American NeoCons, many of them Zionist Jews, have been plotting with a foreign power and a willing military industrial complex in both countries. They advanced a ‘pre-emptive strike’ doctrine into American national defense policy, the result of several decades of Israeli Intelligence operations here.

They have penetrated key American political institutions in a manner that old Soviet spies could only look at and think, ‘Why didn’t we think of doing that.’

What was the public reaction to this ‘to hell with the Nuremberg’ precedent, and shift over to ‘waging aggressive war’? It was basically nothing. Decades of dumbing down had done it’s work.

Now, any country deemed capable of becoming a future threat, American taxpayer money could be spent by initiating a war against a country to prevent them from potentially attacking ‘U.S interests’ at a future date. I think this is a counterfeit version of Democracy.

But please hang in here with me, as it gets worse. What constitutes a potential threat in Iran’s particular case? Their having any military deterrent retaliation option to a pre-emptive strike by us or Israel…is deemed ‘a threat.’

Want to See an Old Israeli Nuke? – Here is a Uranium Core Model Photo that Vanunu Took at the Dimona Plant for Us
The old adage of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’ comes to mind here if the situation were no so dangerous and a permanent stain in any greatness America once had.

The target of aggression is framed as the aggressor…by the Real aggressor(s).

All of our military and intelligence sources here at Veterans Today have confirmed that Iran is a threat to no one. It’s entire military posture is totally defensive, and rightfully necessary.

Their air force is virtually non existent and they have no sustainable logistics support for any major offensive ground action.

The campaign to paint Iran as a threat is a totally contrived one, and again, Israeli intelligence operations and their penetration and corruption of the American political leadership is the driving force behind the entire thing.

There are two American governments in existence now. One is for show…the one the most are familiar with and think is really theirs. And then there is the real government, where elections are never held, and public support is not necessary, nor sought.

They can be controlled simply by having the right tools available and a method of making the public pay for their own enslavement.

And yes, they have the money. Foreign drug dealers can easily donate now through front corporations. They are the new Santas and it’s Christmas everyday.

Where do you and your family fit into the future of these people? Think plantation animal. Can you produce some economic benefit for them in some way, or contribute to their power, like being a plantation manager.

“Hey…we gave you guys the vote – And You Want More?”
The good news is that theoretically we have what we need to defeat them…numbers and the ability to communicate independent of their censors.

I can assure you they are working to eliminate number two. The race is on to see who will win.

The little gem them slipped into the Defense Authorization bill was a slick move they made…even setting up Obama to go along with it.

Why after ten years of a supposedly successful War on Terror with no major attacks on the U.S. or even our embassies did they feel they need to put ‘terror suspects’ arrested here under military control?

Why are the definitions of who is a terrorist or ‘providing support’ left so vague…to where even what I am writing today might target me for supporting ‘Iranian Terror’.

Does someone feel they need a safety valve way of making opponents disappear into the no Constitution or legal rights black hole?

Frankly, I feel if I did not write this or say anything, I would be supporting ‘American Terror’. So no dummy Jim Dean here is taking his name off that list as my last act of 2011.

The American shadow government is not going to voluntarily give back the power they have covertly taken through cold blooded subversion. We will have to take it back from them.

Forget About Going Here – They Will Not Take on the Shadow Gov
A huge hurdle we have, which we will be discussing more in 2012, is that currently they have total protection from prosecution.

There is literally nowhere to go to find a official government agency who will agree to go after them. We will have to create something new, insulated from political corruption…no easy task.

Our whistle blowers are often left hanging out to dry. So we are going to have to take ownership of the problem or their ownership of us will continue. It’s Occupy America time folks.

Fortunately we have the likes of a Stephen Walt on the front lines with us. I close out this year featuring him as a text book case of how to filet and fry NeoCons and their water carriers.

Our website traffic was way up in 2011 thanks to you. Demand for radio interviews is higher than ever. VT TV is in the pipeline. We have chosen a side. We will be carrying water for you.

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University. He does not carry water, but does drive to work with a tanker truck.

Enjoy his following, piece slicing and dicing an Iran Attack hypester. Learn from the best, as it does not get much better than this. Happy New Year, Jim W. Dean

The Worst Case for War with Iran …by Stephen M. Walt

If you’d like to read a textbook example of war-mongering disguised as “analysis,” I recommend Matthew Kroenig’s forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs, titled “Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option.”

It is a remarkably poor piece of advocacy, all the more surprising because Kroenig is a smart scholar who has done some good work in the past. It makes one wonder if there’s something peculiar in the D.C. water supply.

Matt Kroenig – Working the Mic
There is a simple and time-honored formula for making the case for war, especially preventive war.

First, you portray the supposed threat as dire and growing, and then try to convince people that if we don’t act now, horrible things will happen down the road. (Remember Condi Rice’s infamous warnings about Saddam’s “mushroom cloud”?)

All this step requires is a bit of imagination and a willingness to assume the worst.

Second, you have to persuade readers that the costs and risks of going to war aren’t that great.

If you want to sound sophisticated and balanced, you acknowledge that there are counterarguments and risks involved. But then you do your best to shoot down the objections and emphasize all the ways that those risks can be minimized.

In short: In Step 1 you adopt a relentlessly gloomy view of the consequences of inaction; in Step 2 you switch to bulletproof optimism about how the war will play out.

Kroenig’s piece follows this blueprint perfectly. He assumes that Iran is hellbent on getting nuclear weapons (not just a latent capability to produce one quickly if needed) and suggests that it is likely to cross the threshold soon.

Never mind that Iran has had a nuclear program for decades and still has no weapon, and that both the 2007 and 2011 National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran is pursuing an actual bomb.

He further assumes — without a shred of evidence — that a nuclear-armed Iran would have far-reaching geopolitical consequences. For example, he says that other states are already “shifting their allegiances to Tehran” but doesn’t offer a single example or explain how these alleged shifts have anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

He also declares, “With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war.” Huh?

If this bizarre fantasy were true, why couldn’t the former Soviet Union do similar things during the Cold War, and why can’t other nuclear powers make similar threats today when they don’t like a particular American initiative? The simple reason is that threatening nuclear war against the United States is not credible unless one is willing to commit national suicide, and even Kroenig concedes that Tehran is not suicidal.

Early Model ‘Gun Barrel’ Nukes Can be Built in any College Engineering Classroom.
Nuclear weapons are good for deterring attacks on one’s own territory (and perhaps the territory of very close allies), but that’s about it. They are not good for blackmail, coercive diplomacy, or anything else.

And if Kroenig is right in warning that an Iranian nuclear weapon might lead others to develop them too, then Iran would end up being deterred by the United States, by Israel, and by some of its other neighbors too. (As I’ve noted before, Iran’s awareness of this possibility may be one reason why Tehran has thus far stayed on this side of the nuclear threshold.)

Kroenig also declares that a nuclear-armed Iran would force the United States to “deploy naval and ground units and potentially nuclear weapons across the Middle East, keeping a large force in the area for decades to come.”

But why? Iran’s entire defense budget is only about $10 billion per year (compared with the nearly $700 billion the United States spends on national defense), and it has no meaningful power-projection capabilities. Thus, contrary to what Kroenig thinks, containing/deterring Iran would not add much to U.S. defense burdens.

The Persian Gulf is already an American lake (from a military point of view), and Washington already has thousands of nuclear weapons in its own arsenal. Given how weak Iran really is, containing or deterring them for the foreseeable future will be relatively easy.

The key point is that Kroenig offers up these lurid forecasts in a completely uncritical way. He never asks the probing questions that any security scholar with a Ph.D. should axiomatically raise and examine in a sophisticated manner.

Instead, his article is a classic illustration of worst-case analysis, intended to make not going to war seem more dangerous than peace.

When he turns to the case for using force, however, Kroenig offers a consistently upbeat appraisal of how the war would go. (Needless to say, this is not the kind of analysis one would expect from a Georgetown professor.) He knows there are serious objections to his proposed course of action, and he works hard to come up with reasons why these concerns should be not be taken seriously.

What if Iran has concealed some of its facilities? Such fears are overblown, he thinks, because our intelligence is really, really good. (Gee, where have we heard that before?)

What about facilities that are hardened or defended? Not an insurmountable obstacle, he maintains, and in any case there are plenty of other facilities that are aboveground and vulnerable.

Isn’t there a danger of civilian casualties? Well, yes, but “Washington should be able to limit civilian casualties in any campaign.”

What if Iran escalates by firing missiles at U.S. allies, ordering its proxies to attack Israel, or closing the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments? Not to worry, says Kroenig, “None of these outcomes is predetermined,” and the United States “could do much to mitigate them.” (Of course, none of the scary outcomes that Kroenig says would accompany an Iranian bomb are “predetermined” either.)

Doesn’t starting a war increase the risk of regional conflict, especially if Iran retaliates and Americans or Israelis die? Maybe, but not if the United States makes its own “redlines” clear in advance and if it takes prudent steps to “manage the confrontation.” To do this we have to be willing to “absorb Iranian responses that [fall] short of these redlines” and reassure the mullahs that we aren’t trying to overthrow them (!). Bombing another country is a peculiar way to “reassure” them, of course, and it’s a bit odd to assume that those wicked Iranians will be cooperative and restrained as the bombs rain down.

Won’t Iran just reconstitute its nuclear program later, and possibly on a crash basis? It might, but Kroenig says that we would have bought time and that whacking the Iranians really hard right now might convince them to give up the whole idea. Or not.

When Only Nuclear Deterrent Will Work – What Threat Created That Situation?
You see the pattern. When Kroenig is trying to justify the need for war, he depicts an Iran with far-reaching capabilities and dangerously evil intentions in order to convince readers that we have to stop them before it is too late.

But when he turns to selling a preventive war, then suddenly Iran’s capabilities are rather modest, its leaders are sensible, and the United States can easily deal with any countermeasures that Iran might take.

In other words, Kroenig makes the case for war by assuming everything will go south if the United States does not attack and that everything will go swimmingly if it does.This is not fair-minded “analysis”; it is simply a brief for war designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.

And let’s be crystal clear about what Kroenig is advocating here. He is openly calling for preventive war against Iran, even though the United States has no authorization from the U.N. Security Council, it is not clear that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons, and Iran has not attacked us or any of our allies – ever.

He is therefore openly calling for his country to violate international law. He is calmly advocating a course of action that will inevitably kill a significant number of people, including civilians, some of whom probably despise the clerical regime (and with good reason).

And Kroenig is willing to have their deaths on his conscience on the basis of a series of unsupported assertions, almost all of them subject to serious doubt.

Kroenig tries to allay this concern by saying that the main victims of a U.S. attack would be the “military personnel, engineers, scientists, and technicians” working at Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But even if we assume for the moment that this is true, would he consider Iran justified if it followed a similar course of action, to the limited extent that it could?

What is the Real Reason for the Attack Iran Hype?
Suppose a bright young analyst working for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards read the latest issue of Foreign Affairs and concluded that there were well-connected people at American universities and in the Department of Defense who were actively planning and advocating war against Iran.

Suppose he further concluded that if these plans are allowed to come to fruition, it would pose a grave danger to the Islamic Republic.

Iran doesn’t have a sophisticated air force or drones capable of attacking the United States, so this bright young analyst recommends that the Revolutionary Guards organize a covert-action team to attack the people who were planning and advocating this war, and to do whatever else they could to sabotage the forces that the United States might use to conduct such an attack.

He advises his superiors that appropriate measures be taken to minimize the loss of innocent life and that the attack should focus only on the “military and civilian personnel” who were working directly on planning or advocating war with Iran.

From Iran’s perspective, this response would be a “preventive strike” designed to forestall an attack from the United States.

Does Kroenig think a purely preventive measure of this kind on Iran’s part would be acceptable behavior? And if he doesn’t, then why does he think it’s perfectly OK for us to do far more?

What, then, caused the sudden abandonment of this civilized code of warfare by the West after the Second World War? The peoples had not changed in the twenty-seven years that had passed, from the Armistice of 1918. They were not more cruel or less kindly than before. They were blinded by a propaganda which hid from them the real nature of their leaders’ deeds; and these leaders, by their own words, were prompted by others or did not know what they signed. In that way the vengeance of 1945 was wreaked and civilized men were left to say, with Edmund Burke, “It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honour, which felt a stain like a wound.”

The significant prelude came, even before the fighting ceased, with the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations in a country already defeated but denied the refuge of surrender. The killing of non-combatants was the reproach most loudly raised against Germany, in both wars, by the British and American politicians. On February 10, 1944 the Yalta Conference ended, where Mr. Roosevelt, in private parley with Stalin, had said he was feeling “more bloodthirsty” than before about the Germans. On February 13 and 14 British and American bombers for hours on end rained explosive on Dresden, a city crowded with fugitives, mostly women and children, from the advancing Red armies. The number of people killed, burned and buried that day and night will never be known; estimates vary between 50,000 and 250,000.[29] The war documents so far issued do not disclose who ordered this act, and strict measures were apparently taken to prevent the affair from ever being brought under public discussion.

Hitler’s own original proposal for the name of the National Socialist party was “the Social Revolutionary Party”; he described himself as “the executor of Marxism” (not its executioner); and he told Hermann Rauschning that he had built his organization on the model of Communism. I met Hitler once or twice and studied him at close quarters for many years, before and after his rise to power; I believe that no genuinely informative work about him and the part he played has yet appeared.

This period was marked by a series of acts which evidently were deliberately devised to give it a nature of mockery especially humiliating to the Christian West; it was as if captives were made to perform clownish tricks for the amusement of their captors. This was shown at Nuremberg when the Soviet judge was selected to read the part of the judgment which condemned the Germans for taking men and women away from their homes and sending them to distant camps where they worked as slave labour. The British, American and French members of the court listened while Western justice, their inheritance and trust, was mocked. At that time, under the Yalta agreement, Germans, Poles and many more were being taken from their homes and sent to slave-camps; behind the Soviet judge

396

loomed the shadow of the Moscow cellars where men were shot without trial and of the vast Siberian prisonland where, for thirty years then, millions of uncharged and untried human beings wasted in slavery.

So much for the peaks of the vengeance. In the foothills unnumbered smaller deeds were committed which make up the darkest pages in the recent story of the West. It was a reversal to barbarism; where lay the inspiration of it? What directing hand made the Western leaders abet the revolution from the East in a vengeance of the kind practised by savage, primitive tribes? This vengeance was not “the Lord’s” in the Christian interpretation. Whose vengeance was it?

Certain symbolic deeds were evidently meant to establish the authorship, or nature, of the vengeance. These crowning acts of symbolism were the reproductions, after nearly thirty years, of the similar acts committed during the revolution in Russia: the Talmudic boast left on the wall of the Romanoffs’ death chamber and the canonization of Judas Iscariot. After the Second World War the Nazi leaders were hanged on the Jewish Day of Judgment in 1946, so that their execution was presented to Jewry in the shape of Mordecai’s vengeance on Haman and his sons. Then in the Bavarian village of Oberammergau, where the world-famous Passion Play had been performed for three centuries, the players of the chief parts were put on trial for “Nazi activities” before a Communist court. Those who appeared as Jesus and the apostles were all declared guilty; the one performer acquitted was he who took the part of Judas.

These things do not happen by accident, and the vengeance on Germany, like the earlier one on Russia, was in this way given the imprint of a Talmudic vengeance (that is, a vengeance on Christendom, the Talmud being the specifically anti-Christian continuation of the pre-Christian Torah). The vengeful writ ran on both sides of the line which by that time was supposed to be an “Iron Curtain” dividing “the free world” from the enslaved Asiatic one; in this matter of vengeance there was no iron curtain. Nuremberg was in the Western zone; Oberammergau in the Soviet one.

By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi leaders and German commanders the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of “the Jews.” The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, which I have earlier described.

TRIAL…IT WOULD BE THROWN OUT TODAY…

The reason, hidden from them, became clear with the hangings on the Jewish Day of Judgment, for this symbolic act set the pattern for the entire conduct of the occupation, on both sides of the line, in its early years, and even for the future conduct of Western foreign policy far outside the bounds of Europe. The Talmudic vengeance was the start of a new era in the history of the West, during which all national considerations were to be subordinated to the cause of Jewish nationhood, as represented by the Talmudists from Russia.

I have a description, from a person who was present, of the manner in which the Nuremberg judgment came to be delivered on September 30 and October l, 1946 (between the Jewish New Year, September 26, and the Jewish Day of Atonement, October 5), and was executed immediately after midnight in the morning of October 16, Hoshana Rabba, the day when the Jewish god, after an interval during which he considers his verdict on every single human being, and may still pardon sinners, delivers his final judgment. This description says, .” . . all thought the judgment would be delivered sooner than it was, and a number of trifling circumstances delayed it, till the date was fixed somewhere round September 15 … Then X, one of the member judges, objected to the literary form of part of the judgment … it was roughly calculated how long it would take to recast it and to recopy the recasting; and the date was fixed by this.”

I have deleted the name of the member judge. As a result of this delay for literary improvement the judgment fell midway through the holiest ten days of the Jewish Year and was executed on the day of Jehovah’s vengeance. I had foretold some such denouement, in a book published during the war, after Mr. Anthony Eden, on 17 December 1942 in the House of Commons, had made a “Declaration” about the Jews, in which he implicitly limited to the Jews the threat that “Those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution.” Mr. Roosevelt, in America, had made a declaration of similar implication.

The Nuremberg trial formed the model for many lesser “war crimes” trials; these have been discussed, from the legal and moral point of view, in the books of Mr. Montgomery Belgion, Mr. F.J.P. Veale and the late Captain Russell Grenfell. A little of the truth about them filtered out in the course of years. In 1949, an American Administration of Justice Review Board, appointed after numerous protests, reported on some of the American military court trials at Dachau, where 297 death sentences had been approved. The report spoke of “mock trials” to which the defendants had been brought hooded, with ropes round their necks, and “tried” before mock-altars with crucifixes and candles; they were subjected to brutal treatment in the effort to extort confessions which then could be produced before the real trial (the prisoners were led to believe that the mock-trial was the genuine one).

,,,

The biggest of these trials was the “Malmedy trial” of 1945-1946, at which

402

forty-three prisoners were sentenced to death. This trial related to the killing of American prisoners by SS. troops near Malmedy in 1944, and bitter feeling against any proved guilty was to be expected from American prosecutors. However, the tormentors of these prisoners were not Americans, as those who remember the admirable bearing of American troops in Germany after the First World War might expect. They were Jews from Austria who had entered the United States just before the Second War and, under Mr. Roosevelt’s regime, had quickly been taken into the American army and American uniform. A genuine American who was present at these mock-trials (a veteran court reporter) stated that he left the service of the War Crimes Branch in disgust after witnessing the “brutal sadism” practised by one of the inquisitors. Then the chief American prosecutor in this trial, a colonel, admitted to a Senate subcommittee that he had known about the mock-trials; he thought they were proper if the trial court itself was informed of the method used to obtain the defendants’ confessions, and said the prisoners should have known that the black-mass trial was a false one because they were not assigned defence counsel.

A Judicial Commission was sent to investigate and reported in 1949 that the confessions “admittedly” had been obtained by “the use of mock trials in which one or more persons attired as American officers pretended to preside as judges and others attired in American uniforms pretended to be the prosecutor and defender of the accused.” In consequence some of the death sentences were commuted. The chairman of this commission, Justice Gordon Simpson of Texas, told the Senate Subcommittee that the trial procedures followed were “not American” (they certainly were not British) and had been agreed “at the London Four-Power Conference that fixed the terms of the war crimes trials,” so that responsibility, once more, goes back to the politicians of London and Washington and the groups which exercised pressure on them. Justice Simpson also testified that the American Army “could not find enough qualified Americans” for these war crimes trials, in which the good name of the West was involved, “and therefore had to draw on some of the German refugees.”

This aspect of the trials was further illuminated by an event of January 1953, when two men were arrested by the American military authorities in occupied Vienna on charges of conspiring with a secretary of the Soviet Embassy in Washington to transmit secret American military documents to the Soviet state. They were both Viennese-born Jews who had reached America in 1938 and 1940, at the ages of 16 and 26. In any previous war they would have been kept under observation as “enemy aliens”; under Mr. Roosevelt they had received American army commissions as “friendly aliens.” In 1945 they were made “members of the American prosecution team at the war crimes trials.” When they were arrested as Communist agents and spies a high official of the American Military Government in Vienna said, “This ties in with information showing that too many of the Americans employed at Nuremberg were either Communists or were

403

being used by Communists.” He added that “the American prosecution staff at Nuremberg went off in hundreds of directions when the trials were over, many into the American State Department or the United Nations.”

At this time the further disclosure was made that in 1949 Mr. John J. McCloy (an American High Commissioner particularly feared by the Germans during the war-crimes trials period) had been given legal briefs “showing that serious errors in translation from German and other languages into English were introduced into evidence; these errors, in some cases, were made by persons whose Communist ties have since been proved by loyalty checks.” This material has never been made public, but if it should ever be used in an impartial investigation of the trials grave embarrassment for the Western leaders would be caused. At the war’s end Communists were everywhere in control of the Nazi concentration camps (as will be shown later in this chapter); in the manner above described they became prosecutors and judges of the very crimes which they had committed!

Thus the piles of dead received as little true compassion as the living who were driven back by the Western Allies into the concentration-camp area, and today it may be only a matter of historical interest, pertaining to such a book as this, to show that the “Nazi” concentration camps, at the time when the Anglo-American armies entered Germany, were predominantly under Communist control, that Jews were among the tormentors, and that anti-Communism was a surer qualification for the death-chamber than anti-Hitlerism!

Ten years ago this statement (which I substantiate below) would have been sunk by mere weight of derision, if it could have been published at all. Today enough has been revealed about the Illuminist Communist method of infiltrating every class, party, church, organization and institution for some people at least to await the proof with open mind; or so I suppose. Lenin’s dictum was that all wars must in their course be turned into revolutionary wars, which means that the members of the conspiracy must fight for the success of the revolution, not for their country’s victory. The capture of the concentration camps was more helpful to this strategy than anything else could have been, because the camps were full of people who, if they survived, would have fought Communism, as they fought Hitlerism, to the death. The world has never understood this aspect of the resistance to Hitler, because it never understood Hitler himself. Those who have persisted with this book may see the deep significance of his words to Hermann Rauschning: “I got illumination and ideas from the Freemasons that I could never have obtained from other sources” (almost exactly Adam Weishaupt’s words) .” . . I have learnt a great deal from Marxism … The whole of National Socialism is based on it.”

The Communists, in their capture of the concentration camps, were aided by the policy of unconditional support of the revolution which the Western leaders pursued; it gave them power and prestige among the captives which they used for their own ends.